AMMs:
- better UI/UX
- largest trading volume
- available everywhere
- actually decentralized
- nicely composable
- crypto native
- not wintermute

why do you think CLOBs are still better?

haardik.dev | Founder @learnweb3 | lead instructor /uniswaphooks | building @openfarcaster

AMMs are second class citizens. We are already moving towards RFQs which are just market-makers quoting from clobs

building @so many products • prev. @everyname (acq) @nethermind @proximacapital @consensysacad • thomphreys.com

Chiang Mai, Mueang Chiang Mai District, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Question is more so in what ways is that better?

amms < clobs:
- decentralized on smart contract level; client/rpc is still centralized 
- arbitrage paradise for mms (wintermute)
- big UI/UX learning curve (bad slippage = sandwich, arb, front/back run) 
- less liquid than clobs
- fees suck

clobs are the backbone of defi. that said, I'm bullish on rfqs.

"several solutions being impl right now" – that's fair, but the problem is still prevalent and a current arg towards inferiority

you'll be surprised by how much of that amm liquidity are by market makers hedging on clobs or options or yield farming rewards (otc).

amm fees will never be better than clobs: 5 eth -> arb is 25 bps fee + 68 bps price impact vs binance 10 bps fee.

re: off-chain matchers. MMs have an edge on pricing that no one else has. they can negotiate fees on exchanges (significantly more) and have tech to spread your trade across their matching engine.

Arbitrage paradise (LVR) has several solutions being implemented right now

MEV attacks mostly prevalent on L1 only

Decentralized liquidity instead of outsourcing everything to wintermute

Fees fairly configurable, top pools have very low fees usually 

Ideologically how are offchain matchers with large MMs any different from just using robinhood for your trades?

Someone should frame this entire interaction below bc it’s very good debate